In all fairness, the last three presidencies are now characterised by large swathes of executive action. Obama signed a bunch of EO's, Trump came in, undid a bunch of them and signed loads of his own, and on the first day in office Biden undid a bunch of Trump's while adding a load of his own. I'm surprised that Congress isn't crying executive overreach at this stage, the office of the presidency has been usurping the power of the legislature for nigh on two decades now.
I'm not saying Biden can't/hasn't used executive action to unilaterally accomplish certain goals, but he doesn't have unlimited power. He doesn't "control everything." He can't use executive orders to mail out $1,400 stimulus checks.
Technically he can, if he chooses to announce a national emergency on the grounds of the pandemic making people destitute. He does have the power to divert funds from one branch to another, for whatever purpose, just as Trump did by diverting funds from the military towards wall construction. He doesn't need congressional approval, and the state of the economy is poor, so I can't say it would be completely unreasonable. I can see a scenario wherein funds are diverted from, say, the military, towards social safety nets and direct support. You could make the case that it's necessary to quel civil unrest and improve national security, which is in a dire state, as evidenced by riots.
Potentially. I disagree, and it would be a matter for the courts to resolve regardless. Biden understandably only wants to use executive action where there's already precedent.
Simply pointing out an avenue. I agree that it would be disconcerting as under that interpretation the president effectively has dictatorial power over all other branches of government with zero oversight, but that's what executive action is accelerating towards - it's a noticeable trend that both sides dabble in.
Accepting scientific claims without any sort of scientific evidence to support them is what's anti-scientific, by definition.
Accepting government claims without questioning them and taking everything they say as truth is idiotic and scary that your side can think that way. Lack of proof doesn't disprove
I don't accept "government claims" without questioning them. I accept claims when there's evidence to support them.
well you know who to blame the damn GOP they want us dems either dead or dying (which i feel the opposite is true the republicans who are ignoring mask mandates and becoming super spreaders are the most ones dead or dying if only we can find out the deceased political affiliation pretty sure more from the right are dying or even contracting covid more than the left who are more likely to abide by the mandates
This message by Foxi4 has been removed from public view by Darth Meteos, Today at 11:56 AM, Reason: not an imageboardAlways err on the side of Mickey Mouse.
Panic is rarely advisible.
fascists are not operating on the same ethical wavelength as everyone else
Tell that to the over 400,000 Americans who have died
It doesn't prove either. Having no proof is not a positive, it's a negative. Creationist Fallacy.
Ok, but 45% less carbon dioxide is still a lot of carbon dioxide if it were to be done on an industrial level. It's still bad.
More info? This is news to me.
One of the demands from the Republican side was allowing for the examination of the voting machines and their software to ensure that they were set up correctly and never tampered with. To my knowledge they were never allowed to do so (although I will happily accept any source that proves they were as I'm not sure myself), we only saw re-counts of physical ballots, which is not what was requested. Not that it matters post-inauguration anyway.
The paper votes generated by the machines were hand-counted, and the results comported with what the machine votes tallied. There was no fraud.
There's no evidence Joe Biden doesn't know what he's signing, and considering what he's signing comports with what he publicly said he'd sign, there's evidence he does know what he's signing.
See my post above for the partial evidence of a fair and secure election, and there's more evidence publicly available to you.
@
RedColoredStars:
@
SylverReZ:
